• NONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    172
    ·
    1 month ago

    Well, you see, the “Anti Magic Rock” Lobby has immense amount of power because of the money of the still lucrative “burning stuff and pollute everything” business.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yeah, oil oiled the “green” anti-nuclear protests.

        You can tell that’s how it was because the cops didn’t beat them as much (or in some big cases at all) as they do even the most insignificant anti-oil protesters.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I feel like people are interpreting your comment with an American context. As a fellow European I agree, NGOs like Greenpeace are also to blame, and I don’t think those are financed by fossil fuel lobbies.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nuclear isn’t in competition with fossil fuels, it’s in competition with renewables. Renewables are better than nuclear by pretty much every conceivable metric. So fuck nuclear power, it’s a waste of money and time.

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 month ago

        Fact: that is a fake statement.

        Nuclear is not renewables competition.

        Nuclear provides a base line energy production.

        Both renewables and fossils produce a variable production line.

        So within a rational production scheme the choice is nuclear+renewables or fossils+renewables. As renewables by themselves cannot work. Because there is months over the year when it’s not sunny, not rainy and not windy enough, what do we do for those months? We close humanity during those months because some political dogma says so?

        • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Since we are talking hypotheticals, an ideal scenario would be a nearly completely renewables approach where each household is its own self contained energy production center equippef with solar arrays, wind turbines, thermoelectric generators. Various means of production. And have either propane or diesel generator as a backup. You know your average overall watt-hour usage for the household and try to have enough battery capacity to satisfy it for a week or two of bad weather.

          Most household electrical wiring is redone for DC transmission and all consumer appliances possible are run straight on DC for optimal efficency. Energy efficent heat pumps for cooling and heating. energy efficent cooking appliances like induction heaters. Electric cars that act as backup battery banks would be awesome.

          Industrial zones would be much harder as you need huge solar panel or wind turbine arrays to get the megawatt and gigawatts needed to run a factory. Most factories are decades old running on the most energy ineffient assembly lines you can think of. A energy mandate that calculated and taxed total energy efficency compared to national average for factory size and the would be a start.

          Humanity simply does not “stop” because we go through an energy crisis. We did fine enough before the industrial revoltion and renewables + energy efficent consumer devices have improved a bunch. The economy would tank and what renewable energy made would be a premium commodity and the system would adapt to use it best as possible. But things would go on.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Are you sure renewables don’t require more extracted resources and more land usage per quantity of energy produced?